| - DIHQ'S CELEBRITY BOXING POLL -> Facts & a question | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Facts & a question |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Apr 8, 2004 Views: 539 | Facts & a question Europe NOW has the following: *Britain has close to two milion Muslims, 80% of whom were against the Iraq War and 50% who would "consider becoming a suicide bomber." Over 10% openly sympathize with Osama bin Laden. *The Netherlands: Muslims are a majority amoung children 14 and under. In Rotterdam, which is about 50% "foreign born" (mostly Muslim), Europe's largest mosque will be unveiled. The most common boys name in Brussels is Muhammed. Osama is a close second. *Muhammed Al-Fizazi, a 30 year old spellbinder, in prison for 'inciting violence' is a leader of a group "more extreme than Al Qaeda": Salafia Jihadia. He's urged his disciples to "assassinate the impious" and to "love death as much as the impious love life." *A paper found in the rented apartment of one Moroccan terrorist in Spain said, "We must develope immigration into Western countries as the path to the glory of Islam and the destruction of the Godless Pagans." Watch your DWW DVD's and horde em. Doubt if there will be much Euro gal rasslin and scrapin' in the distant future. Then again, I'm sure Lurch (after assuming er...power hehe) & the French & Germans will negotiate with the enemy a 'peace' that will allow for catfighting and 2 piece suits and topless stuff. Negotiating ALWAYS works with fascists of all stripes does it not? I mean, Adolph and Benito and Stalin and Pol Pot must of had REASONS to hate us and our culture, no? atf |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: Apr 8, 2004 Views: 531 | World War 3? It seems as though we are moving and more towards a "world war", whether you want to call it WW3 or something else...I guess the historians will have to officially title it. Actually, you could certainly argue that we are already well into it. And it will be unlike anything the world's ever seen. When Bill O'Reilly started tagging these ongoing conflicts as World War 3 I thought he was full of it (as usual) but it does make more sense now, and I think I see where he's coming from. "His waves are reacing my shores", at least in that regard! These radical "Islamic/Fascists" are becoming more empowered every day and growing in numbers. It's shaping up into a truly global conflict and the term "War on Terror" is just too trite and small. World War 2 was a kind of ultimate showdown to see what socio/political system would dominate the world...the same is really true here. As insane as these radical fanatics are, they are growing in numbers and spreading throughout the world...The Middle East, Asia, Europe. The are increasingly wanting to call the shots (by whatever means necessary), feeling like the disenfranchised losers in the world...at the bottom of the barrel for too long. Of course, that's only a part of the complex puzzle that fuels their hatred. Insofar as the critical moment it seems we are at right now, I really do think that Bush has made matters far worse and really botched it at a crucial stage by insisting on taking the battle to them. YOU CANNOT FIGHT EXTREMISTS LIKE THAT! What are you gonna do "kill 'em all"?? You're not, I assure you...especially in what is seemingly shaping up into a global conflict such as this. What we are doing now is creating MORE extremists than we are killing and spreading terrorism like a cancer. Bush has assured that we will be fighting these extremists for at least the next 50-100 years, I guarantee it! What did he do that was SO BAD, as far as I'm concerned...namely PLAYING RIGHT INTO BIN LADEN'S PROPOGANDA BY INVADING IRAQ! Osama must LOVE Bush for doing him that favor. And, of course, Iraq is what it is now...the dye is cast and we are simply going to have to deal with it. The reality is, we are going to have to be there for a very long time, just to keep the country from totally falling apart...sort of tough when the people hate us more and more every day, and have ALWAYS seen as really nothing more than invaders. So far, we've killed about 8,000 innocent Iraqis, an inexcusable tragedy in the age of "smart weapons" and, of course, more fuel for the extremists. Sadir, the shi'ite leader in Iraq vying for power right now, is only the latest in the long road ahead...once he's captured (or killed and made a matyr), there will be about 20 other "Saddam wannabes" we'll have to deal with. I wonder just who in the hell we really think we are going to "hand things over to" in June? Bush should have been straight with us from the beginning (something he has NEVER done). If...and I do mean IF democracy EVER takes off in Iraq, you're looking at 20-40 years for it to happen. I know we live in an age of short attention spans, but this isn't going to happen overnight...it may NEVER happen. This 6/30 deadline is just a joke...no way in hell they will be anywhere near ready for that hand off, not with guys like Sadir, among others, doing everything in their power to derail the process. If we stick to that plan, it will be a total disaster and things in Iraq will increasinly get a lot worse than they already are. We're talking civil war with tens of thousands killed and US troops caught right in the middle....hell, it will probably happen regardless, at this point. It will undo any accomplishments made and make thing worse than they ever were under Saddam. I will ALWAYS say, we should have STAYED OUT OF IRAQ. They were NOT a clear and present danger, no WMDs, and no connections to al Queda. Oh, al Queda is in Iraq NOW, because we preordained that when we took out the government and destabilized the whole region...they've just poured in, along with a slew of others. It's now a breeeding ground for terrorism, thanks to the US led invasion. Regardless of what we may have done or not done for the Iraqi people, they will ALWAYS look upon us as outside invaders and will have the innate urge to ultimately drive us out. Bad, BAD, touchy situation. With 120,000 troops, we need at least twice that many just to keep the country together. Bush is definitely going to reinstate the draft if he gets a second term, because we've unnecessarily stretched ourselves too thin. Mission definitely NOT accomplished! If we would have concentrated exclusively on al Queda, you know the ones WHO ATTACKED US, we MAY have actually isolated them, taken them out, and killed or captured bin Laden by now. Instead, we have reinvigorated and, it seems, prompted them to join with other groups in a global campaign that probably won't end in my lifetime. Who knows what will happen in the long run..it's a real crap shoot, I'll tell you that! Bush's numbers are down below 50% (if you can believe the polls) and I still think that he can be beat. What will Kerry do if and when he gets in? I don't know, but I do have a feeling that we won't be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon, regardless of the elections...we're simply committed for the LONG haul. One positive thing about Kerry is that I'm sure he will have the diplomatic skills to get more countries involved over there...you know the countries Bushie p****d off with his gung ho, "go it alone" attitude. Of course Fonz, as you know, even though we may debate the issues and disagree on the candidates, nothing personal and....I still LOVES YA! DIO/ROUGH 2004 |
| Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Apr 8, 2004 Views: 525 | "That's a LOT of waves comin' ashore !" Hey, I sure can't get mad at you quotin' me from my apparently well-remembered phrase, esp. when you put it in such well-composed expression. So, lemme take a shot at this, one at a time. First off, to Fonz: Yeah, you sure brought up somethin' that everybody should be aware of: significant demographic changes in European populations by greater Moslem immigration. First off, I'm not at all prejudiced against Moslems or any other religious or ethnic group. My point is that there are many, many countries where the indigenous population is probably always MEANT to make up the vast majority (i.e., more than 90-95%) of the total population to ensure domestic tranquility, because the native racial and/or cultural characteristics are NECESSARY to DEFINE that country. For example, countries of the Far East [like China, Japan, (the two) Koreas, etc.], cannot maintain their NATIONAL identities and still BE, e.g., China, Japan, and Korea, if they were to tolerate large numbers of foreign immigrants from ANY country. The demographic changes would cause too much friction and turmoil with the native population and be a recipe for national disaster. So too probably with the majority of European countries, and so too with other countries where, e.g., Islam is part and parcel of the national identity (like the Arab countries, although there ARE Christian Arabs). All this may seem elementary, but unless nations like those I mentioned do something to curtail foreign immigration, you're lookin' at demographic disaster down the pike. The main exceptions to this scenario are nations like the United States and Canada, where national populations are, historically, mostly built ON immigration. The National Identity of the United States (Liberty, Equality, Pursuit of Happiness, High Support of Individual Rights, Capitalism, etc.) are race-, religious-, and cultural-independent; likewise for Canada, but maybe to a lesser extent, since Canada is part of The British Commonwealth. Now, my focus over to Rough: Invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein was correct, but, alas!, NOT justifiable based on Shrub's big-time reason. Like I've said numerous times, you have to call a spade a spade, and, no, WMD for the most part have NOT been found. O.K., O.K., so put Shrub on the "kick-me-in-my-damn-ass" category for misleading and deceiving everybody, but, REMEMBER this: Based on PAST use of WMD for all his treacherous wars, gassing the Kurds, and NO CLEAR, CONVINCING evidence of having completely eradicated his WMD to the contrary by Hussein himself, Shrub was CORRECT in gettin' RID of him. As Tony Blair said in front of the U.S. Congress: "History will forgive the Americans for acting on a false premise, but history would NOT forgive the Americans if they had had the opportunity to rid the world of a mass-murderer when the momentum was in place." The history lesson for that comes from Nazi Germany: The time to have gotten rid of Hitler was in 1933, not 1945. Everybody by now knows Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda were apparently not connected with Iraq, but so what ??? Getting rid of Hussein stands on its own merits. Forget about propaganda benefits accruing to Al-Queda, the war with those b a s t a r d s would have been done with or without the Iraqi campaign. Hell, I hope those d i p s h i t s get even MORE propaganda benefits, then there won't be any more whiners (no offense, Rough) holding us back from killing every last damn one of 'em. You think I--with emphasis--am fanatical ??? Tell that to the World Trade Center suicide crashers--those are your fanatics, buddy, not me. I do agree that democracy takin' root in Iraq is a crapshoot. My hunch is it (unfortunately WON'T succeed, and I've already said the June 30th pull-out deadline looks more dead than alive. It may very well be that the country will have to settle for a NON-democratic form of government, which, BTW, is fine with me. Not every nation on this good Earth has to have, or is necessarily meant to have, a democracy. Contrary to a LOT of 'Murkinville politicians' thinking, THAT IS O.K. !!! Give the country, by peace or internal civil war (of course, hope that doesn't happen), e.g., a strong-man theocracy, or a strong-arm dictatorship, or even a communist (that's RIGHT, I said it !!!) government. But the Iraqi people have TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET, AND SOONER OR LATER SWIM OR SINK (AND IT SURE AS HELL BETTER BE SOONER). All us 'Murkins just want the Iraqi people to be as happy, peaceful, and secure as anyone else, but no nation can be Iraq's guarantor of those goals. We hafta at least physically get the hell outta Iraq by June 30th (the earlier before, the better), and station U.N./ours/other volunteer nations' troops offshore or in other willing, neighboring countries. I'm completely against keeping 'Murkinville troops physically in there any longer. There's a big dif dying for America's safety, and dying for Iraq's stability, IMHO, (and the two are not necessarily mutually dependent on each other). |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 507 | RE: the Empire Strikes Out No questions here, just statements regurgitating the BushCo line on EVERYTHING, which we have all heard many times already thanks to the constant conservative warmongering media blitz in NAmerica. Really, what would be the point in arguing with you idiots of closed and simple mind who simply repeat verbatim all the cliche's, lies and bullshiate that come out of the Whitey House and the Pentagon? You guys are good Team Players, repeat after me : "I've internalized the values of the people in charge, and have learned that sycophancy is never a bad policy" Im so happy for you Americans now that youve got a Palestine of your own. Say, why dont you issue Star of Islam armbands that must be worn at all times so that we know who they are? (the evildoers) idiots carry on... |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 501 | RE: Facts & a question Actually you are wrong as usual here. The facts are self-evident. They are what they are. Bush & Co are saying "Islam is a religion of peace." I disagree. Bush & Co aren't prosecuting the war in Afghanistan as much as I would have liked. Bush & Co invaded Iraq, which I disagreed with. However, you and your leftist parasites somehow think you'll be exempt. Somehow, if you just placate the whackos they'll 'leave you alone.' Well, they wont. They are moving into a neighborhood near you, which is what I was attempting to illustrate. Actually I was writing of Europe but they are coming here to North America. That includes Canada, oh wise ass one. btw-- When writing about intelligence -- or lack of it -- perhaps we can go to the 'other bored' and recheck what you and others have accused ME of here: posing there as someone else (to be precise, a certain 'Ropeburn'). Note his 'puter addy. Unless I've moved to the UK, Monsieur Ropeburn and I are not one and the same. Returning to the subject, I await the ever approaching query of "But there's a billion Muslims in the world! Do we kill them all?" To which I reply, 'but of course not...unless they ALL threaten us... then yes, by all means we kill them all.' Let us return to the Koran, which says that death be to the Jew, the Christian and the NON BELIEVER. Congrats, they got ya covered oh wise one! Cheers. atf |
| Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 500 | Nobody's regurgitating anything, Bovine-Brain. Nobody's digesting and upchucking anything from ShrubCo, Herr Legionnaire. You need to go back to your corner and get your lapdog lips goin' again to repeat your reading lesson for the day. Then use it to understand everything Rough and I were sayin'. (Do this after your lips have finished with the NFA Web site for your .32 Winchester). Contrary to your wrong assumption, yes, there ARE a lot of us 'Murkins who know that Shrub is gonna be playing high-stakes, Mid-East swordsmanship if he keeps us 'Murkins in Iraq beyond June 30th. That simply means, moron, that beyond then if 'Murkin troops aren't outta there, no matter which way he swings the "Empire's" sword, he's gonna be in REAL danger of choppin' his limbs off big-time. Nobody's internalizing anything from the Prez, Vice-Prez, or any other White House propaganda circus. You think I--with emhasis--am prolific ??? (After readin' your post, spare me the discomfort from bustin' my gut laughin' out loud.) Hey, I do like your idea about the Islamic armbands, though. ;-) ;-) ;-) Question is: How do we color-code them when we assign them to differentiate between the Shi'ite Moslem terrorists and the Sunni Moslem terrorists, or any other terrorist group ??? Maybe if we just round 'em up and give 'em one of your illustrious lessons about the virtues of 'Murkinville-style patriotism or tell 'em your Nietzsche quote they will make you an honorary Imam and see the light of day. |
| Posted By: JSK Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 496 | RE: Farts & a question Boy does Lurch have you all fooled ! If elected he will remove any and all troops from iraq . You know why ? So he can NUKE the **** out of that ****ing pathetic country once we are outta there. Looks like we're back to step one again. If the terrorists wanna march up and down the streets whats stopping us from moeing down each and every one of them ? Or sending a few missles at them? The women and "innocent" are the ones standing around chanting respect towards them ... pop a cap in them while your at it. For HOLY people they are mighty barbaric and its sad anyone would side with the likes of BINLADIN or anyone else involved with terrorism that mainly kills the innocent not the military. The problem is not the United States, England, Spain or anyone else there trying to change the place around. Its the years of mindpower Saddam inplimented on his people. Theres just too many of them and NONE can be trusted over there. I really can't see weeding out all the bad ones. That'll take a few hundred years which I don't think this world will survive. Bad enough for the European countries involved. They are the ones now more prone to a terrorist plot than us. But, we all know it'll happen here again. No worries here. If for some reason any towel head comes to my turf and starts blowing up or shooting American's I know exactly what to do. I'm done with pretending to be nice and forgiving. Rough after you get done with your calculator adding up how many people GW has killed you can start counting up the ones Saddam and Binladin have waxed as well. Those are the roots of the problem. The problem is we didn't dig deep enough. JSK |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 494 | RE: Facts & a question True enough killer. I simply inserted my disagreements with Bush and noted that, contrary to certain opinions here, I do not march in lock-step with anyone. I'll be voting for Bush in November, despite anything else because this is truly Armageddon, nothing less. That we must fight radical Islam now because of THEIR plans for our demise is obvious and THAT was my main point. atf |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 486 | RE: I am never wrong What are you babbling about? Oh, very well. Just for you guys. Somehow, if you just placate the whackos they'll 'leave you alone.' L: Placate? Nobody suggests placating anyone, but I know where youre going with this Youre going to bring up the Nazis and how Chamberlains appeasement didnt work too good. So what? What has that got to do with IRAQ? By BushCo logic If Bush had been running the country when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor you would have attacked New Zealand. They were no threat, had no weapons as I already stated and PREDICTED right from the start (by logical deduction, from the general to the specific Mister Holmes). I knew they had nothing and your government also knew FOR SURE they had nothing. Why? Because you simply do NOT INVADE a country already armed with NUKES! It would be suicide! (Cuba 62) They knew it was safe to attack Iraq with ground troops right from the get-go. That was an easy one for me, but I see how you guys were stumped as usual. I tend to agree with you about the Democrats (surprise!) Ive been around long enough to know that there isnt really much difference between your two major political parties, and they are both basically centrist anyway which is exactly as you might expect in a tyranny of the stupid (democracy). Kennedy Democrat Vietnam Johnson Democrat Vietnam (this is where it really got farked up) Nixon Republican finally got out of Vietnam From Truman to Reagan to Carter to Clinton the bombs continued to rain down all over the world to ensure your 'foreign interests' that amount to little more than rape and pillage to sustain the US global hegemony and the big-pig consumerism run amok. It didnt make much difference what party was in power. And that, my friends, is why you have military bases all over the world. But yes, youre wasting time, blood and treasure in Iraq for no good reason whatsoever. None. Zero. Some silly lie about humanitarian reasons as if the United States ever gave a fark about the people of Iraq. Us Canucks and the French have been bitching about this Iraq debacle all along, we get proved right and what happens? You get mad at us. Forget Iraq and get out. Look, you gave them a shot at freedom by deposing Hussein. What they do with it is their own business (right to self determination). All you have to say is this: Make whatever kind of government you want, you can have a theocracy if that's what the people of Iraq want, but there is only ONE CONDITION - it must be a peaceful one. That is all. Do not make us come back here. That way the US doesn't lose any face or pride, you gave them a shot at freedom and that's all anyone can do. "Islam is a religion of peace." L: Well, technically ALL religions have assimilation schemes at their core (Go ye therefore and teach all nations, and so on ..dont force me to start quoting bloody scripture). The main difference is, as Bill Maher pointed out in a great bit, that we, in the West dont take our religious fundamentalists seriously anymore like we used to in the olden days of Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings. Unfortunately many Muslims still take their crackpot fundies very seriously and believe in ridiculous nonsense like 72 virgins, killing infidels and blowing yourself up with dynamite. In this regard Marx was right : Man will never be truly free until he rids himself of the curse of religion. Also, your own CIA has indicated that it probably was the IRAN that gassed the Kurds in their war with Iraq, because at the time Iraq was not thought to possess the sort of chemical weapons that were used. This is pretty well known information but I notice the Kurd lie gets repeated over and over, even in the mainstream conservative media. thats it for now... |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: Apr 9, 2004 Views: 485 | RE: Facts & a question my mistake, I forgot. NOT Buddhism. (assimilation scheme/major religions) Buddhism is a religion of mind your own business and leave everybody else the hell alone. I can relate to that. |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: Apr 10, 2004 Views: 461 | New Zealand! Heh, heh, heh...that line on Bushie logic is pretty funny...and sad but true! Does New Zealand have any oil? Maybe we SHOULD invade there next. Naaah, all they do is crank out those blasted "Lord of the Rings" movies! I bet you Bushie would love to pump some precious oil out of a pristine place of real estate like that! If the US government cared so much about the Iraqi people's "freedom", we would have taken out Saddam 25 years ago, without carelessly killing some 8-10,000 innocent civilians who never did anything to us. Lesson here: Some of those "smart missiles" ain't so smart! Oh, wait a sec..Saddam was our friend back then, wasn't he? And don't tell me the CIA didn't know what he was doing from day one. And don't tell me that we HAD to be buddy buddy with Iraq because we were at odds with Iran. That's bullshiat. And how do the Iraqis like their new country? We've replaced a dictator with...the vacuum of no government..an occupying power that can't or won't keep the country secure (when it's their obligation to)..an all out breeding ground for terrorism. BRILLIANT! F***ing brilliant! How smoothly does everyone think the impending 6/30 hand off will go? Can we laugh about it to keep from crying?? You have to laugh at the senile stupidity of Donald Rumsfeld, a flaming hawk who NEVER fought in a war....a man who's sent 120,000 of our youngest, best and brightest into the gates of hell..NEEDLESSLY. "There's no uprising", he says the other day. "These people we're dealing with don't even number in the hundreds!" God as my witness, the clueless old man said that! Does he bother to watch the news?? Even "fair and balanced" gung ho Fox News has to begin to begrudginly state the obvious. We are in the midst of a hopeless nightmare with NO end in sight...and for all intents and practical purpses we are in it ALONE. Again....NEEDLESSLY. Iraq had neither the capability or will to attack us...Saddam was playing a diplomatic shell game to keep us guessing, as the UN inspectors would have proven if we would have given them more time. "We were all totally wrong", said David Kaye, former US weapons inspector. Yes, we were. Iraq might just sink Bush yet....stay tuned, because things over there will only get worse between now and November. I just can't wait for the debates, because Kerry will totally mop the floor with the Shrub! Hell, Bush has a hard enough time talking when he's at the podium by himself! DIO/ROUGH 2004 |
| Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Apr 11, 2004 Views: 448 | Omniscient One, just one last question. Omniscient One (that means one who knows everything), since you're never wrong, what type of contorted analogy are you stating here ??? "L: Placate? Nobody suggests placating anyone, but I know where youre going with this Youre going to bring up the Nazis and how Chamberlains appeasement didnt work too good. So what? What has that got to do with IRAQ?" "By BushCo logic If Bush had been running the country when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor you would have attacked New Zealand." No, I really don't think you DO know where you're going. Since WHEN, at that time in the '30's or '40's, did New Zealand ever commit ANY of the acts of aggression to its own residents or neighboring countries like Iraq did in the '80's or 1990 (invasion of Kuwait) ??? Are you insane ??? Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor would have probably caused Shrub to project his anger against New Zealand ??? Have you shot yourself in your mouth ??? The case for getting rid of Hussein doesn't even HAVE to be connected with the al-Qaeda attacks on 'Murkinville !!! If it pleases you, FORGET about Osama Bin Laden and his Shining Knights of Islamic Armor !!! If it helps you, believe Osama bin Laden and his Merry Band of Virgin-Chasing Aassaholic Addicts don't even EXIST, and take them completely OUT of the picture !!! There,...feel better now ??? Hell, I understand your point about placating people, but linking the failure of Chamberlain's mission to appease Hitler with the missing of an opportunity to get rid of Hussein is a VERY STUPID line of thought. There's a TON of similarity between Nazi Germany and Iraq. "What has that got to do with IRAQ ?", you say ??? For starters, what in the hell do you THINK would have been better, Herr Legionnaire, after Iraq: a) started a war first with its neighbor Iran and sought to annex Kuwait by invading a helpless, non-aggressive, fellow Arab nation (and don't indulge me in the history of Kuwait--I already KNOW all about it) ??? (Germany first "peacefuly" annexed neighboring Austria and major portions of neighboring Czechoslovakia, before invading and annexing Poland to the Third Reich.); b) Iraq gassed the Kurds to death. (Germany gassed the Jews, Poles, gypsies, and others to death.); and c) Hussein was definitely trying to build up an Iraqi nuke program. (Germany was definitely trying to make/acquire fissionable uranium to build its own nuke bomb.) Maybe you think it would have been basically better to continue taking the non-belligerent approach, continue using economic (what a farce) sanctions, diplomatic (more farce) sanctions, and never-ending WMD inspections year after year, to keep Hussein in line ??? You know what Nietzsche would probaby tell you ??? Don't trip over yourself on your way to the insane asylum. You don't invade a country armed with nukes ??? BRILLIANT DEDUCTION. (As an afterthought, do you think 'Murka WOULD have invaded Iraq if ANY nuke-armed country--does Russia perchance come to mind ???--would have said it would have aided Iraq against the U.S.A. if 'Murkinville would attempt to overthrow Hussein ???) Of course not. Had Russia (or probably any other nuke-armed nation with nuke-delivery capability) seriously said it would come to Iraq's aid in war against the U.S.A. if 'Murka invaded Iraq then you bet your Buddha the U.S.A. would NOT have risked it. So you bet we 'Murkins DO have a debt of gratitude towards Putin for NOT standing in our way, and we should definitely be grateful for non-Russian interference. That type of super power co-operation or understanding (Russia should still be considered a super power, at least from the military angle) WAS crucial for Shrub to go ahead. Everybody understood that hands down. The search for Hussein's WMD was not SOLELY focused on nukes, and, yes, we were already fairly sure he did not YET have them. Unlike your one-dimensional mind (thinks only in the present), WE were thinkin' about this monster's FUTURE nuke-acquisition ambitions, and we KNEW he sure as hell wanted to get his hands on 'em sooner or later. Chemical or biological WMD ??? Everybody knew he at least had already used poison gas. So WHO was to tell us with any credibility that maybe he really didn't have any MORE of the damn stuff, or other types of non-related WMD, despite the failure of the WMD inspectors to locate any ??? ... Maybe his damn Minister of Information ??? ... (Please, don't make me laugh any harder.) Another point: You want me to take the oil factor out of the equation ??? Fine. Suppose Iraq were completely oil-barren, without a drop of damn oil to its name. Would we, the British, and the others STILL have been correct to depose Hussein ??? Why hell yes. (Sure, there ARE other farkin' dictators around the world and a helluva lot of other trouble spots, and you can condemn us for not giving a rat's ass about deposing them, as well, but, that's one of our faults I suppose we'll just have to work on. Always room for improvement.) As far as your assertion that the CIA has indicated that it was probably Iran who gassed the Kurds back in the '80's, show me where in the hell that comes from. I admit I can't follow every new revelation that comes down the pike, but I also admit I sure as hell am ready to. I believe lies are better off exposed A.S.A.P., so I await your prolific discovery to enlighten me. Come to think of it, so would Hussein's farkin' defense lawyer (barrister ?), if Hussein's damn ass ever gets to trial. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) (P.S. to Rough: Yeah, you're right, we WERE cozy with Hussein back in the '80's, and it WAS bad principle to do so, even if it meant to advance our foreign policy objectives against Khomeini and Iran. Like I said to Mr. Never Wrong above, there's always room for improvement.) Class dismissed. |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: Apr 12, 2004 Views: 428 | RE: Facts & a question There was a point I reached late last night, after sipping a few beers and snarfing down a coupla doobies, where Tongue Tangled almost started to make sense. No, really. Suddenly, I was stoned I could see it. But then just as quickly it was over and I slipped back across to the other side again (sanity). good grief |
| Posted By: JSK Posted On: Apr 13, 2004 Views: 418 | RE: no-stop babble here Hmmmmmmmmm...not bad T. I'm going to go off alittle bit here. (2004 ELECTION) From how it all sounds Leege,Dio,GG/JJ & the rest of my non-United freinds are currently not voting for GW Bush. Oh yeah thats right they have no say! Well lets get a quick count here. I know Fonz,T-100 and I will be scribbling in GW when we cast our ballets. I know some of my northern freinds may not be voting for Bush even though they know Kerry's record or atleast should. I bet Rough isn't even registered and with all the talk he'll more than likely accidently write himself and Dio in thus nulling his vote:) Gentlemen I think we're at around 50/50. I'd really love to hear who Hutch is voting for? (LURCH DOES NAM) Lurch has an all over the place past. He fought, he got out early and then once he saw an opening he decided to cause waves during a crucial time in the 60's. Remember he was young and on dope although he won't admit it and doesn't bring it up. He didn't go about it for the sake of the troops either. He actually bashed the men and pointed fingers at the very ones who he "fought" beside. But, he never gave details to what he was doing while all the horror he only witness took place. Ok, he really didn't fight, but thats beside the point. He claims a lot of things & is a follower not a leader. His record as a senitor reveals that. Atleast Clinton just ran out of the country during Vietnam. Thats the best form of anti war.But, then look at how Clinton combated terrorism and would be wars. He didn't - which helped lead to 9/11. He had 8 years to do something while GW only had 8 months. I can just see the same additude with a shmuck like Kerry. (KERRY'S SECRET BUDDY) Kerry even got Nixon to hate him and thats not an easy thing to do. But, Kerry did so like a snake pretending one thing and doing another until his true sides shined through. Lucky for Kerry there was Watergate or his political career would have been black-balled. Kerry's other buddy was Plain Jane Fonda another little troll. Theres pictures and articles written about how he followed that dumb bitch while she **** on our troops back in Vietnam. Its one thing to make a point, but during war,but theres a right way and wrong way. He chose the wrong way. I'm sure that'll all come out again and hope it does. I know most of you know all that, but its important to remember how this man thinks and is. (KERRY BACK TO HIS OLD TRICKS) Then we bring you to the 80's where he stood around doing nothing for the state of Massachusetts ... even questioned his buddy Ted Kennedy about Mary Joe Kapekni(sp?)whom he killed during a drunk driving accident and was a yes man during all the presidents up until now. Including GW the 1st inwhich Kerry voted YES for the "attack" on Iraq in the early 90's. AND up until this war and during it he praised Bush and basically went along with what was going on. He supported him then so whats his reason for HATING him now and for George being so evil? This just means he would have done the same thing GW did, but I really don't think Kerry could have handled a 9/11 like GW did. Like a true friggin coward he would have turned his ass cheek and went on with life as he knows it. Yeah, right ... you can be darn sure he would have done something within the same time as GW did. If he didn't he would have had so much pressure afterwards his nickname would be pussy boy. Suddenly the real Learch pokes his head out again and starts going against the government he himself not only is a part of but hasn't done a darn thing to change. The reason is because he's not in his shoes. And worse than a flag burner(Which Kerry has done I'm sure)he downed his own leader in a way noone should do. He not only name called him, but swore about him! Call the FCC, Clearchannel and get Kerry off the airwaves. This is worse than Janet Jackson's right tit. What gives this man the right to talk that way to his leader? Seems to be the in thing to talk trash about anyone and everyone now a days. Kerry realized that fad. Elect Kerry! Pull the boys and girls out so they can regroup over there and really give it to the world. Make our soldiers feel real good about themselves and give the people of Iraq back to the dogs. Let the Saddam supporters gather themselves and be able to train and plot in that nation they once could. As he's done throughout life he'll turn his back on our men and women in the armed forces and **** of the rest of the coalition who thought it was a great idea. Sorry John but you can't make everyone happy just to get browning points. Your bound to **** someone off no matter what you do and pressing the eject button on Iraq isn't such a good idea just yet. Maybe after Nov, but he was talking he would have done so months ago which was only for votes. Terrorism has already hit the USA and I think will happen again no matter how nice you are to these people. I wish John knew this. People are mixed in how they will vote. Some say they are more worried about the economy, others education and ofcourse our withdrawl from Iraq. Well let me tell ya Kerry sucks at atleast 2 of them. Even when the economy was still decent our state of Mass payed the highest in taxes, housing and even our crime rate didn't budge. I can't tell you how many times he's turned his back on education, law enforcement and senior citizens and thats just the basics that come to mind. He allowed business to move not only out of state, but out of country. And he still insists he can strengthen our economy?HOW? I heard his plan and it sucks. Even Yahoo Howard Dean had a better economic plan than he does. Yet he's not for the rich? What does he mean he's not going to help out anyone named Rich because he could have fooled me! I guess he's fooled most of you. Now place your votes like the other idiots who only do so because "I'll vote for anyone besides Bush." GReeeeeeeeat answer. He helped foresee the creation of the BIGDIG which is still being worked on and is way over budget. He went along with celebrating finicial disasters and spending money the taxpayers could have used just so his people would have a GOOD TIME. He's done this for over 20 years just as any politician would, but yet he claims he's different? Kerry's record will just show you he knows squat about forign policy. Sure, he elects people to do all that for him, but this nerd is fixated in doing everything peacefully and fair. Sometimes you can't acheive things peacefully and that only allows others to walk all over you. And in regards to economical fairness I'd say we've been more than generous towards other countries. Why not just bend over while we are at it !?! I think with what all happened in regards to terrorism and countries who are most dangerous we couldn't have invaded a better place. I'm really not sure anything can be done to combat terrorism and make it never happen. But, if and when it does happen again here in the US what do you think Kerry will do before or after if something did happen? From how he sounds to me absolutley NOTHING! I will leave with saying name any war and you'll find we rarly start them. We come in and help and either are usually left with the burden or are suddenly the evil ones. And when we don't get involved its just as worse. But,numorous countries who have done jack **** about anything can sit back , relax and never worry about what our nation does. And yet they are never questioned about it. WW1,WW2,VIETNAM,KOREAN WAR....ect we didn't start them, but we were certainly in them. There is a reason we were in Iraq in the early 90's and why we are in there today. I'm not expecting everything to go @ 100% our way. GW said the "war" will last for a long time and lives would be lost. But, we wouldn't leave until we're done or get a decent enough government structured over there. I guess too many people forgot that when the "war" began and suddenly decided they didn't want that a little too late. Well I'm not like that. I'm voting for GW. And when Kerry comes back to Massachusetts he will again not get my vote. Funny how all the babble does nothing to change persons views so people babble a way! JSK |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: Apr 13, 2004 Views: 411 | RE: Facts & a question Who is this Kerry fellow you keep going on about? |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page -> |